nationfandomcom-20200223-history
A New Vision on an Old System
English | publisher = The House Publishers | date = 2008 in Lovia | editions = One (1st) | genre = Non-fiction > society, politics, socialism | mediatype = Print (paperback and hardback) | pages = 210 pp | ratings = | previous = none | next = White King/Black King (Y. Medvedev) }} A New Vision on an Old System is a Lovian non-fiction book about the current role socialism plays in the world and of course in Lovia. It is inspired by some charters Alyssa C. Red wrote when she was a member of the MPSJ (Mouvement Parisiene des Jeunes Socialistes).Translates: Parisian Movement of Young Socialists It also contains a chapter by Yuri Medvedev. The work aims to inspire to the Lovian socialist parties. A New Vision on an Old System is divided into five chapters: # Can left still dream: talks about how the socialist parties of today compromise to much. This causes them to loose sight off their true ideals. # The New Socialism of the 21st century: chapter on how we should - and could - create a New Socialism in the 21st century. It shows the vision of a worldwide struggle against capitalism and neo-colonialism. # Has socialism failed? is a little bit of reasoning that learns us that socialism hasn't failed at all. Instead, it is capitalism which hasn't done what it promised. # What after the socialist revolution? is about how different kinds of socialism have a different kind of answer to their new economic system. # Some comments on Marxist-Leninist theory gives us an idea of what course communism would have taken if Marx or Lenin had been the ones steering. A fundamental view of how to build up Leninism in different stages. Content Chapter 1: Can left still dream? Today, 40 years after May '68, the traditional social-democratic ideas are stuck in a defensive position. This is so in many places and for as many reasons: we do not need to look to the other side of the wall to see the ruins of the socialistFor the term 'socialism' see the appendix; utopia. Left politics are driven into a corner, but they have to blame mainly.. themselves! Left has been lazy. It didn't think enough, it wanted to be to much. A lot of socialist parties are alienated from their very origins. They thought to much about how to win the next elections instead of concerning about how to become - and stay - a real socialist party. They should be thinking about inequality and capitalism and how to protect the poor, instead of trying to win more votes. The original coalition between the lower class, the sympathizing part of the middle class and some enlightened intellectuals has been outlived by the 'correct thinking' of the political parties. The socialist spirit has been lost somewhere along the way and caused the lower classes to switch to an often right alternative. The correct thinkingFor the term 'correct thinking' see the appendix; has swept those very things the people wanted to talk about from the topic list. Things like safety and family, things the socialist parties now need to earn back. All of this is joined by the fact that left has agreed in a logic that closes down factories, causing a majority of the middle class to get hit by the uncertainties of our modern capitalism. The social model is being destroyed, even though its socialist governing for decennia. Poverty is growing in all kinds of new and old forms. After allowing to close down the 'Third Road', left has been considered as long lost pragmatism. But without illusion, pragmatism and the art of leading a government are merely techniques. This shows just what socialism is missing: a soul and a vision. Left once stood for 'moving the beacons', but somewhere between once and now the instrument became the purpose. My question is a simple one: "Can left still dream?" Alyssa C. Red Chapter 2: The New Socialism of the 21st century It is clear that New Socialism,For the term 'New Socialism' see the appendix; where the people recover control of their economy, culture, and political system on a community-based way, is not something we can build up in a year. But how could the socialist idea be restored through the New Socialism which makes part of the struggle against neo-liberalism?For the term 'neo-liberalism' see the appendix; First, socialist parties have to put tendencies into practice. Second, we have to strengthen the capacity to organize communities within our own society. There are people everywhere who are fragmented and oppressed by the ideas of neo-colonialism,For the term 'neo-collonialism' see the appendix; which is a tendency that comes directly from neo-liberalism. On a worldwide scale, we see the same happening in poorer and ex-socialist countries. In a lot of those nations there is a huge potential for incorporating wealth through industry and production. They suffer however due to the greed of the western governments and multinationals that suffocate those new markets. Socialist parties and western societies have the duty to defend the rights of the people of those countries in the struggle against neo-liberalism. But in a lot of western countries the socialist ideal has been fading away, like said in the former chapter. How well the old unity of workers in the communistFor the term 'communism' see the appendix; movement based on unionizing the industry is gone, the working class has not disappeared. Instead there are more new workers now than ever before. Not only the growth of the worlds' population, but also the emancipation of women have contributed to that. The only thing that still stands in the way of New Socialism is that the working class was left unorganized and fragmented after the fall of socialism in 1991. Finding a new way, revolutionaries have to recreate a new workers movement composed of people with different perspectives. They have to be grouped by neighborhoods, states and occupation, no longer by working place as is currently the case with unions. Now the workers are divided, they don’t make a tight community. We need to put everything in the work to empower a nation-wide workers movement. Only that way we will be able to generate the potential for a socialism of the 21st century. We can undertake these actions in our own country, state, city or town, but the acts of one person alone are not enough. Like so, one state or one country to fight alone is not enough either. That’s because neo-liberalism and capitalism are a planetary construct. The only way to transcend a worldwide system is to invoke another one. When will we be able to invoke this expanding worldwide struggle for rights and wealth everywhere? Alyssa C. Red Chapter 3: Has socialism failed? The collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe has brought many people to the conclusion that socialism has failed. But if socialism has lost, then capitalism must have won. If the well-planned economies in socialist countries have broken down, then the free-market capitalism must have triumphed. This questionable reasoning is not just a flaw in logic, it is false on empirical grounds as well. Objectively seen, global capitalism has a rather failed system today too. The evidence of its failure can be seen in the poverty in the world and ex-socialist countries in specific. In official statistics we can see that the unemployment, poverty, homelessness, death rate of children and hunger in ex-socialist countries is growing. The only thing going down over there is wealth. But isn't that what capitalism promised? Isn't more wealth not just where the Soviet Union was broken up for? Yes, capitalism said it could change the lives of thousands of people. And it did so, not just in the way promised. One should seriously consider if socialism has actually failed? The existing socialism did, but not Marx's socialism or any other variant. It is just one form of socialism that has proven to be a failure. But does that mean that socialism in se has failed? Of course not! Now take a look at the existing capitalism, which is the only kind of capitalism that is possible. Has it been the success it is believed to be. In any logical judgement, capitalism is an even greater failure than socialism. Never before the gap between the society's potential and its performance has been so big as it is today. As the Soviet Union was the monument to the failure of one kind of socialism, Eastern Europe is a monument to the failure of capitalism today. As already said, there is a difference between the two failures though: socialism has failed for the time being, but it is still the alternative for a safe and justified world. Capitalism however has unacceptable economic, moral and ecological consequences. Those are not just some side effects of some specific circumstances, it are the very characteristics of the uncontrollable logic of capitalism. A logic of exploitation and abuse of others. The negative effects of capitalism are inevitable, capitalism has a systemic necessity to fail. In contrast, socialism has no structural failure; it failed due to the choices that the Communist parties in power made. Because it has a state economy, socialism simply has no logic or laws like market-based capitalism. This lessons learns us that socialism therefore is not just the alternative to capitalism, but it also remains a real choice for mankind. Alyssa C. Red Chapter 4: What after the socialist revolution? After socialist revolutions, the question always was "what now?" The first few days could be filled with marches, speeches, congresses of the International and the amazement of the bourgeoisie. So far so good. But then, after the end of the week, comes monday. And then what? Every kind of socialism gives another answer to the question. Those answers often greatly differ in how specific and plausible they are. The earliest kinds of socialism, like the ones of Fourier and Saint-Simon, were both very specific but very implausible. All forms following became either less specific or more plausible. Marx devoted his socialism to fighting capitalism. A lot of people followed this example and for a moment they thought that there wouldn't be a problem. They believed that by the time monday arrived, it would be obvious what needed to be done. For instance, in September 1917 Lenin wrote the following in his pamphlet called 'State and Revolution': "The accounting and control necessary for the first phase of communist society, immediately following the overthrow of capitalism, have been simplified by capitalism to the outmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations - which any literate person can perform - of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts." This has however almost no resemblance to what the Bolsheviki actually did on their monday. The vision of Marx ignores the economic problem, which consists of deciding how to use limited resources. It is needed to say that what happened after the russian monday seemed to work very well for a while; Until the 1970s western economists had a hard time showing that capitalism worked better. Also due to its outer looks of wealth, many socialists thought of Soviet-like central planning as good solution to their monday. Today we know that this was all a little to hopeful, that Lenin's three Rs are not enough in order to establish a working economy. Most socialist views have thrown out the markets before their monday arrived, but without those the entire economy would have to be planned to achieve efficiency. So it seems that a socialist economy cannot be efficient, unless it is either centralized or compromised. Centralizing an economy would be a violation of the civil liberties and should under no circumstances be allowed in a democracy. It is also a self-destructive measure of socialism since it will eventually create a greater gap between middle and lower classes. The other solution would be to choose the path of self-regulating markets. Those markets would make their own prices, that way forcing people to use resources efficiently. Social inequality could be worked away by a governmental interference in export matters, which is way less undermining the socialist economy. Perhaps we should consider that way. Yuri Medvedev Chapter 5: Some comments on Marxist-Leninist theory The fall of the Soviet Union, the product of the first socialist revolution, gave rise to a "communism is dead" line in propaganda. Another such idea is that communism has been revised in such a manner that it is no longer communism. One thing is sure: the collapse of existing socialism in Eastern Europe changed the power balance in favor of imperialism and world capitalism. But communism predates the October Revolution and so it will continue to be after the fall of the Soviet Union. The disappearing of the socialist block does not invalidate the ideology; the socialist system may have been taken out of practice, but this does not negate the existence of the class struggle. This struggle for socialism remains the only alternative for capitalism in this century. The first socialist revolution took place in an underdeveloped capitalist country. Lenin saw 1917 as an announcement to the world revolution. But the German and Hungarian revolutions of 1919 revolutions were crushed by the bourgeoisie. "Socialism in one country" became thus a necessity instead of a choice. Building up socialism while encircled by imperialism and capitalism was a heroic act. We can state that the achievements of the Soviet Union in the first decades of its existence distanced the political top from the reality that the way to socialism is a complex one. Like Lenin wrote: "We have only just taken the first steps towards shaking off capitalism altogether and beginning the transition to socialism. We do not know and we cannot know how many stages of transition to socialism there will be". The Marxist-Leninist theory requires (1) a socialist democracy: the institutionalization of democratic forums and participation of people in the political process and economic management; (2) a need for a correct relationship between the state and the party in a socialist society; (3) flexibility in the management of the economy and multiplicity of the forms of ownership of property at different stages. To build this kind of socialism in a world where capitalism is dominant, a theory that accepts the fact that socialism is build up in stages is needed. Also, if no form of democracy is present in the socialist system, it will fail to develop the potential socialism. The Leninist conception of a party which has been the instrument for revolutionary seizure of power and consolidation of the new state has to be developed in such a manner that the correct relationship between the state and the party is established in a socialist society. This requires ending the misuse of democratic centralism which is a party principle being extended to state functioning. It demands the institutionalization of democratic forums in society which are not the sole preserve of the ruling party and the need for pluralism within the socialist framework. Yuri Medvedev Appendix Following are some terms that might need a further explanation in order to fully comprehend the text: * Communism: oldest form of socialism, in the text specifically the one that united the working class from 1948 until 1991. Some well-known derived forms and specifications are Leninism, Stalinism and Titoism. In China there rules still a form of communism. * Correct thinking: Political term for a weaker policy in order to gain popularity and votes. The same system can be used to weaken the content of a parties agenda so that a coalition could function more easily. * Neo-colonialism: A form of the economic suffocation of poorer countries by western multinationals. This way, rich countries can strengthen their might over other nations, thus forming a neo-colony. It is directly related to neo-liberalism. * Neo-liberalism: A current form of liberalism which contains international capitalism and opens up a way for neo-colonialism. * New Socialism: A form of socialism that is rising in the beginning of the 21st century. It is a vision of a worldwide socialist movement. It has some things in common with communism and represents the opposite of neo-liberalism. * Socialism: General term for all kinds of socialism and communism. Often used for the current politics that are based upon the protection of the lower classes' rights. Reception and comments "Imagine a society where people consciously learn about and transform the world, where people are no longer imprisoned by the chains of tradition and ignorance. Imagine a world where people not only cooperatively work to produce the necessities of life, but get into art and culture and science - and have fun doing it. Imagine a world where the scientific outlook and the flight of imagination strengthen and inspire each other, where there is unity and diversity, far-ranging debate, and ideological struggle over the direction and development of society, but no longer stamped by social antagonism. Imagine a world where people interact with each other based on mutual respect, concern, and love for humanity, a world that cares about and takes care of the environment. Imagine communism." This is what we read on the back of the book. A perfect world, according to the original communist ideals. Nothing about the (failed) past, but a message of a future for socialism. The book gives us an idea of how and why we should make socialism part again of our politics and daily life. The book shows us the other side of socialism, the side that is usually ignored. A real masterpiece on modern politics. References and notes Category:Book Category:Politics